G.R. No. 115402 - LEONCIO LEE TEK SHENG, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANTONIO J. FINEZA, AND LEE TEK SHENG. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, private respondent prayed for the dismissal of the partition case and for the reconveyance of the lots to its rightful owner the conjugal regime. Meantime, to protect the interest of the conjugal regime during the pendency of the case, private respondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT 8278. Petitioner moved for the cancellation of said annotation which was denied by the trial court ruling that (a) the notice was not for the purpose of molesting or harassing petitioner and (b) also to keep the property within the power of the court pending litigation. [3] Petitioner assailed the denial of his motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens via petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals (CA), but to no avail. [4] Resorting to this Court, petitioner primarily contends that in the resolution of an incidental motion for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens ( a) it was improper to thresh out the issue of ownership of the disputed lots since ownership cannot be passed upon in a partition case, otherwise, (b) it would amount to a collateral attack of his title obtained more than 28 years ago. He argues that his sole ownership as shown in the TCT would be improperly assailed in a partition case and should be done through a separate suit. On the contrary, private respondent posits that evidence of ownership is admissible in a partition case as this is not a probate or land registration proceedings when the courts jurisdiction is limited. Though the postulates respectively proffered by both parties are not at point, luckily for private respondent, petitioners claim is not legally tenable. There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked [5] but that rule is not material to this case. The annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not in any case amount nor can it be considered as equivalent to a collateral attack of the certificate of title for a parcel of land. The concept of no collateral attack of title is based on Section 48 of P.D. 1529 which states that: Certificate not Subject to Collateral attack.- A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. [6] (Emphasis Supplied). What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title. The certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. [7] Besides, the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of owner